sw1mushfandomcom-20200215-history
Talk:Admiralty
Disambiguation? :See also: Wikipedia's disambiguation guidelines Shouldn't pages like this be used for disambiguation? Since other navies probably have Admiralties as well as the Union. The Caspian Admiral page should be titled Admiralty of the Union. --ImperialFH 15:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC) *I agree. --Danik Kreldin 16:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC) ** Still the same issue. Admiralty should be the name of the Disambig and have a link pointing to the Caspian page and whatever pages the otehr orgs designate. Sort of like the Marines page --ImperialFH 19:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC) *I would suggest moving this page to Admiralty of the Union, delete Admiralty (disambiguation), and leave the redirect from Admiralty -> Admiralty of the Union. If at some point in the future someone wants to create another Admiralty page (e.g. Admiralty (Imperial)), then they can turn the Admiralty redirect into a disambiguation. I think creating a disambig page now is premature because there's only one page. Better to just leave the option open with the redirect. -- Xerxes 19:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC) *Actually, I'm not aware of any military out there on the MUSH that uses the Admiralty as a governing body besides the Union. The Empire has Imperial High Command, the Republic has the Ministry of Defense. Admiralty seems unique to the Union. So I draw back on my previous statement and think it should remain as it is. --Danik Kreldin 19:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Admiralty is a term for any body of flag officers, specifically Naval flag officers. If the Caspians call it the Admiralty of the Union and the Imperial Navy calls it Imperial High Command or Grand Admiral's Council the disambig page could/should point to others. I think we have set a standard of doing this in the past and should at least keep with the Policy going forward. --ImperialFH 19:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC) *Where have we set this standard in the past? I'm not sure what you're referring to is a proper use of a disambiguation page. To me, it refers to multiple uses of the same name. The Grand Admiral's Council is a different name, even though it may fit the common definition of an Admiralty. -- Xerxes 20:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC) *The standard he is referring to is Marines and Intelligence, both formal names of entities that various governments here could claim "ownership" over. However, in this instance (as Danik has noted) there is only one government that uses Admiralty as a formal name. I direct you to these two articles on Wikipedia — Admiralty and Joint Chiefs — demonstrating how they handle an issue like this. The predominant formal-name entity gets the title, and a disambiguation page or See Also / See Related section gets denoted/tagged. -- Hawke / Rtufo 20:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC) The Joint Chiefs page is exactly how it should be worked. Admiralty as a redirection to Admiralty of the Union. When/if another group uses the term Admiralty it becomes a disambiguation page. As for the Admiralty, it is one of the dictionary definitions of the word. Thus it would be proper for Admiralty to then point to a disambiguation page for folks looking for it in other contexts. Not to demean the Caspar org, and I understand the context in which you are using it, but having only been in existance for like 6 years, the CDU's Admiralty wouldn't be the standard definition of the word on a galactic scale. More like how the disambig points from the Admiralty disambiguation page to Russian Admiralty.--ImperialFH 13:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)